Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, Docket No. 5:11-cv-01846 (N.D. Cal. Apr 15, 2011), Court Docket Multiple Documents Part Description 1 44 pages 2 Declaration of Tulin Erdem STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER #2212 3 Declaration of Stephen Gray 4 Declaration of R. Sukumar STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER #2212 5 Declaration of Jerry Wind STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER #2212 6 Declaration of Andries Van Dam © 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see www.bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LJBLEO82?documentName=2080.xml Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2054 Filed10/19/12 Page1 of 44 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) ! [email protected] 50 California Street, 22nd Floor " San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 # Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 $ Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261) [email protected] % Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) [email protected] & Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) [email protected] ' 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 ( Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 Susan R. Estrich (Cal. Bar No. 124009) [email protected] Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417) ! [email protected] 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor " Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 # Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 $ Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS % AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC & UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ' NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION ( APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK ! Plaintiff, SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S ! MOTION FOR A PERMANENT vs. INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES !! ENHANCEMENT SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a !" Korean business entity; SAMSUNG Date: December 6, 2012 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New Time: 1:30 p.m. !# York corporation; SAMSUNG Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh !$ LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION !% Defendants. !& !' 02198.51855/5003337.14 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES ENHANCEMENT Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2054 Filed10/19/12 Page2 of 44 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ....................................................................................................... 1 5 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 1 6 I. THE COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ............................ 1 7 A. Apple Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm From Samsung’s Use of Its Claimed Intellectual Property ................................................ 2 8 1. Apple Has Not Shown Irreparable Harm From Design Patent 9 Infringement .................................................................................................. 3 10 (a) Apple Overstates The Importance Of Design In Purchasing ............ 4 11 (b) Apple Has Not Shown That Its Patented Designs Drive Demand ............................................................................................. 5 12 (c) Changes To Apple’s Offerings Defeat Irreparable Harm ................. 6 13 2. Apple Has Not Shown Irreparable Harm From Trade Dress Dilution .......... 7 14 3. Apple Has Not Shown Irreparable Harm From Utility Patent 15 Infringement ................................................................................................ 10 16 (a) Apple Has Not Shown That Its Features Patents Drive Consumer Demand .......................................................................... 10 17 (b) “Copying” Does Not Demonstrate a Nexus .................................... 12 18 (c) Dr. Hauser’s Survey Results Do Not Show Consumer 19 Demand ........................................................................................... 13 20 4. There Is No Basis For Apple’s Claimed Irreparable Harm ......................... 13 21 B. Apple Has Not Shown That Monetary Remedies Are Inadequate .......................... 15 22 C. The Balance Of Hardships Favors Samsung ........................................................... 17 23 D. An Injunction Would Not Be In The Public Interest .............................................. 18 24 E. Apple’s Proposed Injunction Is Vague, Overbroad And Otherwise Improper ....... 20 25 F. Apple Should Post Security to Protect Samsung From A Wrongful Injunction ................................................................................................................ 21 26 II. THE COURT SHOULD NOT ENHANCE THE JURY’S DAMAGES VERDICTS ....... 22 27 A. Nearly $950 Million Of The Jury’s Award Represents Disgorgement Of 28 Infringer’s Profits That Is Not Subject To Enhancement ........................................ 23 02198.51855/5003337.14 -i- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES ENHANCEMENT Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2054 Filed10/19/12 Page3 of 44 1 1. Products Found To Infringe Design Patents But Not Dilute Trade Dress ............................................................................................................ 23 2 2. Products Found To Infringe Design Patents And Dilute Trade Dress ........ 24 3 3. Products Found To Infringe Only Utility Patents ....................................... 27 4 B. Apple’s Requested Enhancement Is Unavailable Under The Lanham Act............. 27 5 1. Apple’s Claim Of Uncompensated Injury Is Unsupported ......................... 28 6 2. Apple’s Calculation Is Flawed and Arbitrary ............................................. 28 7 C. Apple Is Not Entitled To Enhancement Based On Utility Patent 8 Infringement ............................................................................................................ 30 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/5003337.14 -ii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES ENHANCEMENT Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2054 Filed10/19/12 Page4 of 44 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page 3 Cases 4 Accentra, Inc. v. Staples, Inc., 2011 WL 7563039 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) ...........................................................................18 5 ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 6 ___ F.3d __, 2012 WL 3636908 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2012) ...................................................2, 15 7 Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 551 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................17 8 Advanced Cardiovascular Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 9 265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................32 10 Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Medtronic, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88892 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2008) ..........................................................17 11 Aero Prods. Int’l, inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 12 466 F.3d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................26, 27 13 AFL Telecommunications LLC v. SurplusEZ.com, Inc., 2011 WL 5547855 (D. Ariz. 2011) ..............................................................................................7 14 ALPO Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 15 913 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................................27 16 ALPO Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 997 F.2d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ...................................................................................................27 17 Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 18 __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2012 WL 2376664 (N.D. Ill. June 22, 2012) ....................................... passim 19 Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..............................................................................3, 5, 10, 12, 13 20 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 21 __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 4820601 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012) .................................................. passim 22 Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-cv-630 ...............................................................................................................................3 23 Arnott v. Am. Oil Co., 24 609 F.2d 873 (8th Cir. 1979) ..........................................................................................24, 25, 26 25 Automated Merch. Sys, Inc. v. Crace Co., 357 F. App’x 297 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................15 26 Baden Sports, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Molten, , 27 2007 WL 2790777 (W.D. Wash. 2007) .....................................................................................34 28 02198.51855/5003337.14 -iii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES ENHANCEMENT Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2054 Filed10/19/12 Page5 of 44 1 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................24, 31 2 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v.